4 ms·
Since the ultra-wealthy are by definition a small portion of the population, and retirement contributions are capped at a low annual rate, it does in fact make
by wutbrodo 7y ago
Since the ultra-wealthy are by definition a small portion of the population, and retirement contributions are capped at a low annual rate, it does in fact make the point that the parent commenter is trying to.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- take_a_breath 7y ago==All told, 630,000 millionaires — about 1% of all IRA savers — cumulatively had more than $1 trillion in IRA accounts, accounting for 22% of all IRA assets.== https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-to-shelter-hundreds-of-millions-in-an-ira-account-2014-09-19 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-to-shelter-hundreds-of...
- walshemj 7y agoSo what a $millionaire is not in the super rich or even the rich class - well of middle class yes.
- r_luna 7y ago1 million dollars in a 401k is not the same as a 1 million dollars in a house. When the median american makes 65k per year and has 45k in disposable income it takes a lot of luck to put a million dollars into a 401K. There are 300 million+ americans, of which only 650k have a million or more in the 401k. How can we call the top 650K middle class?
- walshemj 7y agoYou can not just count 401k which has stingy limits, I bet that are more than 650k with >1$m if you count other assets as well as the 401k (excluding your home)
- take_a_breath 7y agoWe can assume that the 650k people with $1 million in just their IRAs also have significant other assets. I’m not really sure what you are arguing here.